First let me say I haven't even heard of this until your post, but if you read the article and then go to the webpage it suggests(www.spp.gov) it goes on to completely counterdict pretty much everything that was written in the article. I spent all of 5 minutes on the website and it pretty much says just the opposite. Basically talking about staying seperate sovereign nations that agree to work together to common goals.

I don't know, that's just what I saw. I'm going to read a bit more though

Thats old news. Al Gore spoke during the "Summit of The Americas" and said every person in the western hemisphere has the RIGHT to a living wage. That wage WILL be $8.75 to $10.75 an hour. It seems like there are a lot of jobs in that pay range now days. Ever wonder why its so hard to control the border? Maybe they want it open. We can go to the moon, conquer countries, but we just cant seem to get control of our southern border. DUUUHHHHHHHH Things are done incrementally. Little by little they wear you down. Just watch and see whats coming.

Thats old news. Al Gore spoke during the "Summit of The Americas" and said every person in the western hemisphere has the RIGHT to a living wage. That wage WILL be $8.75 to $10.75 an hour. It seems like there are a lot of jobs in that pay range now days. Ever wonder why its so hard to control the border? Maybe they want it open. We can go to the moon, conquer countries, but we just cant seem to get control of our southern border. DUUUHHHHHHHH Things are done incrementally. Little by little they wear you down. Just watch and see whats coming.

if they got paid 8 bucks an hour in mexico city why would they cross the border?

if they got paid 8 bucks an hour in mexico city why would they cross the border?

Because people may not want to be in Mexico. If you could make $8.00 an hour here or in Mexico, would you go? I wouldn't. They don't want borders and our wages are going down. Far more people will make less money in the future. They are cutting the middle class.

Myth: The SPP was an agreement signed by Presidents Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in Waco, TX, on March 23, 2005.

Fact: The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed.

Myth: The SPP is a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union and establish a common currency.

Fact: The cooperative efforts under the SPP, which can be found in detail at www.spp.gov, seek to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency. The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers.

Myth: The SPP is being undertaken without the knowledge of the U.S. Congress.

Fact: U.S. agencies involved with SPP regularly update and consult with members of Congress on our efforts and plans.

Myth: The SPP infringes on the sovereignty of the United States.

Fact: The SPP respects and leaves the unique cultural and legal framework of each of the three countries intact. Nothing in the SPP undermines the U.S. Constitution. In no way does the SPP infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States.

Myth: The SPP is illegal and violates the Constitution.

Fact: The SPP is legal and in no way violates the Constitution or affects the legal authorities of the participating executive agencies. Indeed, the SPP is an opportunity for the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico to discuss common goals and identify ways to enhance each nation’s security and prosperity. If an action is identified, U.S. federal agencies can only operate within U.S. law to address these issues. The Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security coordinate the efforts of the agencies responsible for the various initiatives under the prosperity and security pillars of the SPP. If an agency were to decide a regulatory change is desirable through the cooperative efforts of SPP, that agency is required to conform to all existing U.S. laws and administrative procedures, including an opportunity to comment.

Myth: The U.S section of the SPP is headed by the Department of Commerce.

Fact: The SPP is a White House-driven initiative. In the United States, the Department of Commerce coordinates the ‘Prosperity’ component, while the Department of Homeland Security coordinates the ‘Security’ component. The Department of State ensures the two components are coordinated and are consistent with U.S. foreign policy.

Myth: The U.S. Government, working though the SPP, has a secret plan to build a "NAFTA Super Highway."

Fact: The U.S. government is not planning a NAFTA Super Highway. The U.S. government does not have the authority to designate any highway as a NAFTA Super Highway, nor has it sought such authority, nor is it planning to seek such authority. There are private and state level interests planning highway projects which they themselves describe as "NAFTA Corridors," but these are not Federally-driven initiatives, and they are not a part of the SPP.

Myth: The U.S. Government, through the Department of Transportation, is funding secretive highway projects to become part of a “NAFTA Super Highway”.

Fact: Many States in the American Midwest are proposing or undertaking highway projects to improve or build roads as Federal-aid and State or private sector revenue becomes available. All projects involving Federal-aid funds or approvals are subject to normal Federal-aid requirements, such as review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), including public involvement. This public involvement, the common thread among all these activities, makes them anything but “secret.” In addition, Congress directs Department of Transportation funding for specific highway projects.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will continue to cooperate with the State transportation departments as they build and upgrade highways to meet the needs of the 21st century. Rather than evidence of a secret plan to create a NAFTA Super Highway that would undermine our national sovereignty, the FHWA’s efforts are a routine part of cooperation with all the State transportation departments to improve the Nation’s highways.

Myth: U.S. Government officials sponsored a secret SPP planning meeting in Banff, Alberta in September 2006.

Fact: The U.S. Government did not sponsor the meeting in Banff. The North American Forum, a private initiative that is separate from the U.S. Government, hosted the September 12-14, 2006 conference “Continental Prosperity in the New Security Environment.” Academics, businesspersons, private citizens, and government officials from the U.S., Mexican, and Canadian governments attended the conference. The North American Forum is not a product of the SPP.

Myth: The SPP will cost U.S. taxpayers money.

Fact: The SPP is being implemented with existing budget resources. Over the long-term, it will save U.S. taxpayers money by cutting through costly red tape and reducing redundant paperwork. This initiative will benefit the taxpayers through economic gain and increased security, thereby enhancing the competitiveness and quality of life in our countries.

Myth: The working groups and SPP documents are a secret and not available to the public.

Fact: The SPP’s initiatives and milestones with timelines can be found by clicking the Report to Leaders link at www.spp.gov. The Web site contains a section to enable interested persons to provide input directly to the various working groups.

Myth: The SPP seeks to lower U.S. standards through a regulatory cooperation framework.

Fact: The framework will support and enhance cooperation and encourage the compatibility of regulations among the three partners while maintaining high standards of health and safety. Any regulatory changes will require agencies to conform to all U.S. administrative procedures, including an opportunity to comment. Enhanced cooperation in this area will provide consumers with more affordable, safer, and more diversified and innovative products.

Myth: The SPP is meant to deal with immigration reform and trade disputes.

Fact: Immigration reform is a legislative matter currently being debated in Congress and is not being dealt with in the SPP. Likewise, trade disputes between the United States, Canada, and Mexico are resolved in the NAFTA and WTO mechanisms and not the SPP.

Myth: The SPP will result in the loss of American jobs.

Fact: The SPP seeks to create jobs by reducing transaction costs and unnecessary burdens for U.S. companies, which will bolster the competitiveness of our firms globally. These efforts will help U.S. manufacturers, spur job creation, and benefit consumers.

Myth: The SPP will harm our quality of life.

Fact: The SPP improves the safety and well-being of Americans. It builds on efforts to protect our environment, improves our ability to combat infectious diseases, such as avian influenza, and ensures our food supply is safe through the exchange of information and cooperation ─ improving the quality of life for U.S. citizens. Americans enjoy world class living standards because we are engaged with the world.

Myth: The SPP creates a NAFTA-plus legal status between the three countries.

Fact: The SPP does not seek to rewrite or renegotiate NAFTA. It creates no NAFTA-plus legal status.

Develop a North American Border Pass. The three countries
should develop a secure North American Border Passwith biometric
identifiers. This document would allow its bearers expedited passage
through customs, immigration, and airport security throughout the
region. The program would be modeled on the U.S.-Canadian
‘‘NEXUS’’ and the U.S.-Mexican ‘‘SENTRI’’ programs, which

Expand border infrastructure. While trade has nearly tripled
across both borders since the Canadian-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
(FTA) and NAFTA were implemented, border customs facilities
and crossing infrastructure have not kept pace with this increased
demand. Even if 9/11 had not occurred, trade would be choked at
the border. There have been significant new investments to speed
processing along both theCanadian-U.S. andMexican-U.S. borders,
but not enough to keep up with burgeoning demand and additional
security requirements.

Lay the groundwork for the freer flow of people withinNorth
America. The three governments should commit themselves to
the long-term goal of tically diminishing the need for the
current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border
traffic, travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal
for a North American border action plan should be joint screening
of travelers from third countries at their first point of entry into North
America and the elimination of most controls over the temporary
movement of these travelers within North America.

Enhance the capacity of the North American Development
Bank (NADBank).NADBank was conceived to support environmental
infrastructure projects within 100 kilometers on both sides
of the Mexican-U.S. border. After a slow start, NADBank has done
importantwork over recent years, and itsmandate has been expanded
recently to cover 300 kilometers into Mexico. However, to achieve
its full potential, the U.S. and Mexican governments should
(1) expand NADBank’smandate to include other infrastructure sectors,
particularly transportation; (2) permit it to access domestic capital
marketsand apply credit enhancementtools; (3) support the establishment
of revolving funds through both grants and soft loans throughout
its jurisdiction; and (4) strengthen its technical assistance programs
to promote good governance and creditworthiness of communities
and public utilities. Finally, NADBank’s internal procedures and the

NAFTA allowed duty-free access within the region, but because
of different rates charged by each country on imports from other
countries, it required cumbersome proof of North American origin in
order to qualify for NAFTA access. These rules can raise transaction
costs to the point that some shippers choose to pay the multilateral tariff
rate instead. In addition, although the dispute-resolution mechanisms
provided by NAFTA have proven a reliable means for resolving most
trade disputes, they have been incapable of dealing with important and
controversial problems regarding softwood lumber, sugar, and a few
other products.

Establish a Seamless North American Market for Trade
With tariff barriers virtually eliminated, and the outlines of a North
American economy visible, the time has come to take a more comprehensive
approach to strengthening the economic prospects for citizens
in all three countries. The first step is to encourage convergence in the
most-favored-nation tariff rates each partner charges on imports from
outside North America. Next, the governments should reduce the
remaining nontariff barriers to the flow of goods and services, and
address problems arising from charges of price discrimination and subsidization
by competitors in North America. Finally, they should coordinate
their approach to unfair trade practices by foreign suppliers to the
North American market. The ultimate goal should be to create a
seamless market for suppliers and consumers throughout North
America.

Open skies and open roads. The efficiency of the transportation
network is critical to making North America a more competitive
place to invest and to produce, and in spreading the benefits of
economic growth to all corners of the continent. Among other
regulatory reforms, governments should consider the benefits of
allowing North American transportation firms unlimited access to
each others’ territory, including provision for full cabotage (trade
between two points within a country; for example, a Canadian
trucker hauling freight from Chicago to Los Angeles or an American
airline carrying passengers betweenMexico City and Monterrey)
for airlines and surface carriers

Expand temporary migrant worker programs. Canada and the
United States should expand programs for temporary labor migration
from Mexico. For instance, Canada’s successful model for managing
seasonal migration in the agricultural sector should be expanded to
other sectors where Canadian producers face a shortage of workers
and Mexico may have a surplus of workers with appropriate skills.
Canadian and U.S. retirees living in Mexico should be granted
working permits in certain fields, for instance as English teachers.

• Implement the Social Security Totalization Agreement
negotiated between the United States andMexico. This agreement
would recognize payroll contributions to each other’s systems,
thus preventing double taxation.